Email this article to a friend

Biblical capitalism provides a powerful twist to the right’s faux-populist narratives—the hybrid-driving, college-educated liberal “elites” are no longer just political opponents; they’re enemies of God’s order.

Until recently, 2011 had been a quiet year for the Christian right. Adopting the successful Tea Party blueprint, the first wave of 2012 presidential hopefuls–including the candidates whose Christian cred was central to their political rise–distanced themselves from divisive social issues in favor of popular anti-government themes.

But just as religious rhetoric appeared to be receding from the political landscape, in August three-term Texas Gov. Rick Perry threw his hat in the presidential ring with a blend of politics and religion he dubbed “The Response.” Perry is the first candidate to arrange a marriage of convenience between the libertarian Tea Party and the Christian right–a pairing that propelled him to the head of the Republican pack, although his front-runner status has since been claimed by both Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.

But Perry’s Christian right bona fides are open to question. While he recently jumped on board with the latest Republican “pledges” to curtail abortion and gay marriage, he only did so after pressure to back down from his absolute defense of state sovereignty.

The self-interest and individualism that permeate the libertarian philosophy are not easily reconcilable with Christian teachings. Many Tea Partiers take pride in “going Galt,” inspired by the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, who declared, “I swear by my life and my love that I will never live for the sake of another man”–a clear refutation of Jesus’ directive, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor.”

So how has Perry garnered large-scale support of the religious right? The answer has to do with a concept known as “biblical capitalism.” Biblical capitalism reinterprets the Christian holy book to make the case that libertarian fiscal policy is divinely inspired. Proponents argue that Jesus and the Bible oppose progressive taxes, minimum wage laws, social welfare policies, collective bargaining rights and environmental regulation.

Although the sanctification of laissez-faire economics dates back to the early 1900s, the movement has been revitalized by the Tea Party’s latest pseudo-historian, David Barton. Barton’s 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, which claims that the Founding Fathers never meant to keep church and state distinct, was so thoroughly debunked by scholars that it had to be rewritten and reissued in 1996 as Original Intent. That Perry’s calls for his followers to pray for economic deregulation have been met with applause and not confusion suggests that the message has found its target audience.

Biblical capitalism allows Perry and the Tea Party to imply–without having to delve into the philosophical incongruities–that fiscal and social conservatism necessarily intertwine. Biblical capitalism provides a powerful twist to the right’s faux-populist narratives–the hybrid-driving, college-educated liberal “elites” are no longer just political opponents; they’re enemies of God’s order.

But in exchange for defying these “elites” by casting a Tea Party vote in their spiritual self-interest, hard-line social conservatives receive an economic order from a financial elite that opposes their earthly self-interest–an order in which the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the poorest 50 percent of the population combined.

Perry has clearly articulated his vision for America through his legislative record as Texas governor. He has stuck to his small-government guns for a decade now and, predictably, constructed a state of both extreme wealth and desperate poverty–a corporate Candyland complete with low tax rates, toothless regulatory policies, nonexistent labor protections, an eroding system of public education and the highest percentage of residents without health insurance in the union.

This vast socioeconomic disparity reflects the worldview embraced by the Koch brothers and Tea Party leaders–that we exist as self-interested individuals competing for limited resources without concern for the well-being of others. Their ideology and its desired end-game scenario are clear. But any spiritually and intellectually honest Christians who pretend that this philosophy fits next to the teachings of Jesus are in need of some soul-searching. They might begin by asking, “When Jesus felt the weight of the world upon his shoulders, was his response to ‘shrug’?”

i agree we definitely have to help people in need, poor people, we are all brothers and sisters, we cant take advantage of anyone!
cat6 cablingPosted by julieth peña on 2011-11-01 13:26:00

Leviticus 25: 35-37: If any of your people become poor and unable to support themselves, you must help them, just as you are supposed to help foreigners who live among you. Don't take advantage of them by charging any kind of interest or selling them food for profit. Instead, honor me by letting them stay where they now live.Posted by Will Comment on 2011-10-26 11:23:29

Whine, whine, whine.Posted by John Emerson on 2011-10-20 19:09:40

In the face of your incivility, I resign the argument. You win.Posted by Theodore G. Shepherd on 2011-10-20 19:05:29

You are again lawyering like a ******. The Pharisees were lawyer Christians who had an answer for everything and an argument for everything. (Hint: serious questions cannot be settled by running to the dictionary.)
**** your black man with the voice trembling with rage who thinks that welfare is worth than slavery. 0% to 1% of the black population agrees with that disgusting, loony idea. Either he was putting on a clown show for your benefit and his own, or he was ******* crazy.
What is in question in this article is the interpretation of the Christian social message. The lawyerly ** you shoveled out has nothing to do with that and I doubt that you give a **** about that question at all.Posted by John Emerson on 2011-10-20 17:37:58

You are again lawyering like a sonofab*tch. The Pharisees were lawyer Christians who had an answer for everything and an argument for everything. (Hint: serious questions cannot be settled by running to the dictionary.)
F*ck your black man with the voice trembling with rage who thinks that welfare is worth than slavery. 0% to 1% of the black population agrees with that disgusting, loony idea. Either he was putting on a clown show for your benefit and his own, or he was bugf*ck crazy.
What is in question in this article is the interpretation of the Christian social message. The lawyerly BS you shoveled out has nothing to do with that and I doubt that you give a sh*t about that question at all.Posted by John Emerson on 2011-10-20 17:37:07

You are again lawyering like a sonofabitch. The Pharisees were lawyer Christians who had an answer for everything and an argument for everything. (Hint: serious questions cannot be settled by running to the dictionary.)
Fuck your black man with the voice trembling with rage who thinks that welfare is worth than slavery. 0% to 1% of the black population agrees with that disgusting, loony idea. Either he was putting on a clown show for your benefit and his own, or he was bugfuck crazy.
What is in question in this article is the interpretation of the Christian social message. The lawyerly BS you shoveled out has nothing to do with that and I doubt that you give a shit about that question at all.Posted by John Emerson on 2011-10-20 17:36:17

For John Emerson, who said my comment sounded Pharisaical. John, you did not assert that I am Pharisaical, but only that my comment sounded so to you. Of course, you are entitled to your reaction and suspicions. For the record, though, I reject the charge completely. Definition of PHARISAICAL: marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness. I am no hypocrite but simply express my opinion. I do not censor those who disagree with me, though I feel free to express my disagreement civilly. My comment is not sufficient grounds to judge me to be self-righteous. The purpose of my expression -- I, for one, etc. -- is specifically to acknowledge that I am expressing an opinion while I make no demand that my reader agree with me or my reasoning.
You have not told us how you are so sure what is in the minds of other people. Can you quote them? You asserted that opponents of public charity know that nothing would take its place after its (highly theoretical) end. No one can show up at your door with armed men legally demanding part of your income except government agents. Certainly, it is tautological that the end of government-forced charity would mean the end of coercive charity. That would not mean the disappearance of charity but only that each person would be free to respond to the needy according to his own lights. Some would give money, some would give jobs, some would make the purchases that support jobs, some would give education and training, some would turn away. Everyone would have to respect the next man's sense of duty and willingness to comply with that personal sense of duty. I once heard a black man, his voice trembling with rage, say that the US welfare system is worse than slavery. As I understood him (there I ago again, leaving room for the opinions other than my own), he meant that the welfare system is even more destructive of initiative and hope and self-respect, and is even more difficult for its "beneficiaries" to escape.Posted by Theodore G. Shepherd on 2011-10-20 16:40:53

Look, I realize that many people make this mistake: they're not me so therefore they're the same as each other. But using the word "libertarian" over and over with regards to Perry is getting absurd.
The principle of "they're both not me so they're the same as each other" is heavily abused, but if you're going to write a professional quality column for a professional quality internet magazine, you should dispense with such lazy mental shortcuts. You should be attempting to educate your readers even when discussing those who are "not you."
His version of capitalism isn't the libertarian version. Please try again.Posted by Ayn R. Key on 2011-10-20 10:15:56

Libertarians don't just not support government charity, they actively oppose it and think that any of it at all is wrong. There's nothing in the Bible supporting that. Libertarians also do not necessarily support private charity, and many of them either actively oppose that too, or else simply do not give.
It's one thing not to advocate public charity or to have doubts about it. It's another thing to demand that it be ended, and elect Congressmen to root it out and put an end to it, knowing full well that it will not be replaced by anything else. I don't see a Christian justification for that.
You seem to be lawyering the Bible with "So, I for one, see no difficulty...." Sounds Pharisaical to me.Posted by John Emerson on 2011-10-19 14:01:16

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions teach people to observe the Ten Commandments. Among the commandments, is a prohibition on lying. It does not follow that followers of one of those religions logically must support a government that treats all lies as perjury, subject to prosecution and punishment. Similarly, one can believe in having some duty to the poor without believing that it is effective or moral to allow the government to enforce some interpretation of that duty. One can believe in some duty to the poor without also believing that he must acknowledge or explain that belief to other people or prove that he is complying with it. Privacy exists at least as long as state power has limits. So, I for one, see no difficulty in a Christian's belief in a religion-derived sense of obligation without also supporting government coercion to comply with some other people's sense of obligation.Posted by Theodore G. Shepherd on 2011-10-19 09:52:33